Where a motor vehicle registration number plate is forged for the purpose of uttering, whether the crime of forging air defense is established (affirmative), and the meaning of “for the purpose of uttering” in this case

Article 238(1) of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 2014No2156 decided January 8, 2015

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 238(1) of the Criminal Act, where a motor vehicle registration number plate which is an air defenseer is forged for the purpose of uttering, the crime of forging air defense is established. The term "for the purpose of uttering" refers to the purpose of using the forged motor vehicle registration number plate as if it were genuine. In addition, the term "for the purpose of use of the forged motor vehicle registration number plate in accordance with the usage thereof" refers to operating the motor vehicle by attaching the forged motor vehicle registration number plate to the motor vehicle and attaching it to the motor vehicle so that it may cause the general public to misunderstand the identity of the motor vehicle (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do3319 delivered on July 8, 197,

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following facts and circumstances are revealed.

A. On January 25, 2013, the Defendant was entrusted by the Nonindicted Party (vehicle No. 1 omitted) with repair of the freight vehicle (hereinafter “instant freight vehicle”) and was towing the instant freight vehicle to a business company operating the Defendant on the towing vehicle, and lost the registration license plate of the instant freight vehicle.

B. After considering the aforementioned circumstances from the Defendant, the Nonindicted Party sought a registration number plate from the Defendant, and requested the Defendant to search for a registration number plate and attach it again, on the following grounds: (a) the freight vehicle in this case was left the frame, making it impossible to move a long distance, but it is possible to use the freight in a fixed place; (b) so, it was intended to use the freight in replacement of the vehicle for the vehicle in this case instead of giving up repair; and (c) it is necessary to have the registration license plate even if used for the

C. The Defendant did not find a lost registration number plate, and sought the horses from the Nonindicted Party to move the instant cargo vehicle to an enterprise with low estimate because the actual borrower is not in accord, and forged the registration number plate of the instant vehicle in the same manner as the facts charged in the instant case, and attached it on the back part of the instant cargo vehicle.

D. Even if the method of forging a registration number plate by the Defendant is similar to the actual registration number plate, shape, size, arrangement of letters, etc. of the other vehicle’s normal registration number plate is similar to the other vehicle’s normal registration number plate, and then the white paint is removed on the top of the other vehicle, and then the test is indicated as “(vehicle No. 1 omitted)” with a black color, and thus, it is difficult for the general public to enter the registration number plate in a genuine number plate.

3. Examining these facts and circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, there is sufficient room to deem that the Defendant forged the registration number plate of the air for the purpose of exercising its right, as shown in the facts charged in this case, to prevent the occurrence of the failure to attach the registration number plate under the premise that the Nonindicted Party, the actual owner of the instant freight vehicle, who attached the forged registration number plate to the instant truck and moves the instant truck to another place at the workplace operated by the Defendant, or to take over it and use it in accordance with the method of use.

Nevertheless, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the Defendant of the instant charges on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the Defendant forged the registration number plate for the purpose of exercising its right on the ground that it is difficult to view that the Defendant had forged the instant registration number plate for the following reasons: (a) the term “operation” refers to the operation of the attached automobile; (b) the term “operation” refers to the passage of the vehicle along the vehicle according to the way in which its prior meaning was determined; (c) the instant cargo vehicle was damaged and was in an impossible condition to be operated; and (d) the Nonindicted Party attempted to use the instant cargo vehicle for the replacement; (c) but it is difficult to deem that the external shape of the registration number plate manufactured by the Defendant had reached the degree of the ordinary person to have his registration number plate loaded with the real registration number plate. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the purpose of exercising the crime of forging air traffic, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)